Complaints, Lawyer Discipline and Public Hearings

Summary of Decision on an Application for an Oral Hearing on Costs

North Vancouver, BC

Called to the bar: August 1, 1985

Written submissions on costs: July 11 and August 4, 2017

Panel: Philip A. Riddell, Chair, Don Amos and Shona A. Moore, QC

Decision issued: September 18, 2017 (2017 LSBC 33)

Counsel: Carolyn Gulabsingh for the Law Society; Richard Gibbs, QC for Lawyer 17

BACKGROUND

Lawyer 17 applied for an oral hearing to make submissions regarding his entitlement to costs in excess of the tariff, and as to the quantum of those costs. In his written submission, Lawyer 17 suggested that the panel make an order for special costs of about $50,000, as “there are important costs issues to be determined.” He asked that two hearing days be scheduled.

DECISION

The panel found that an oral hearing is required to ensure that Lawyer 17 has the ability to argue the “important cost issues,” but concluded that a two-day hearing is excessive. The panel decided to schedule a one-day hearing to address the remaining issues:

  • whether an order for costs above the tariff is reasonable and appropriate in all of the circumstances; and,
  • if so, the quantum of costs that should be ordered.

The panel also made several procedural directions to ensure that the hearing time is used as efficiently as possible.

2017 LSBC 33 Decision on an Application for an Oral Hearing on Costs